Candida fracture-related infection: a systematic review.

Background: The aim of this study is to summarize and improve knowledge regarding a Candida fracture-related infection (CFRI) through a systematic review on the topic, accompanied by a case report. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on PRISMA statement were conducted on the CFRI topic. The following combined search terms were used to explore PubMed, Cochrane, and the Embase database: "fungal infection", "candida", "fracture related infection", "bone infection", "orthopedic infection", "internal fixation", "post-traumatic infection", and "osteomyelitis". Results: Out of 1514 records, only 5 case reports matched the selection criteria and were included. Moreover, a new case of CFRI, not previously described, was reported in this paper and reviewed. The main risk factors for CFRI were open wounds (three cases) and immunodeficiency (three cases). Initial improvement of clinical and laboratory signs of infection was noted in all cases. In the available short-term follow-up (mean 12.1 months; range 3-42), the reoperation rate was 33.3 %. Using a strategy based on extensive debridement/resection methods and prolonged systemic antifungal therapy (mean 8.8 weeks; range 6-18), four of six cases (66.6 %) were cured. Bone union occurred in three out of six cases. Conclusion: There is very low-quality evidence available regarding CFRI. Candida infections in surgically treated fractures are rare but difficult-to-treat events, with a slow onset, unspecific symptoms or signs, and a significant relapse risk; therefore, they still represent a current diagnostic challenge. The existing fracture-related infection treatment algorithm combined with long-term systemic antifungal therapy has an anecdotal value and needs more extensive studies to be validated.

Validity and reliability of the Unified Classification System applied to periprosthetic femur fractures: a comparison with the Vancouver system.

Objective: The Unified Classification System (UCS) presents itself as an evolution of the Vancouver Classification (VCS) for the evaluation of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur (PPF). The aim of our study was to highlight any loss of reproducibility or validity of the new classification system, compared to the previous one.Material and methods: We tested the interobserver and intraobserver agreement using 40 PPF clinical cases. Each classifying subtype of the UCS and VCS was present in at least two cases. Six experienced hip surgeons (Senior Surgeon, SS) and 5 surgeons in training (Junior Surgeon, JS) classified the clinical cases, using VCS and UCS. The validity of both classifications was then tested with intraoperative surveys.Results: The mean κ value for interobserver agreement for the VCS in the JS group was 0.65 and 0.81 for the SS group. The mean κ value for interobserver agreement for the UCS in the JS group was 0.63 and 0.65 for the SS group. The mean κ value for intraobserver agreement for the VCS in the JS group was 0.71 and 0.73 for the SS group. The mean κ value for intraobserver agreement for the UCS in the JS group was 0.72 and 0.7 for the SS group. Validity analysis showed a moderate agreement for the VCS and a good agreement for the UCS.Conclusion: The UCS completes the Vancouver classification, expanding it. It is reliable, despite the increase in classification categories and number of parameters to evaluate, with a slightly higher validity.